Which zoom lens for a new APS-C user?

[alphaPDX]

There have been several concerns in dyxum reviews about the quality of the Sigma 17-70. That is not to say there haven't been any concerns about the Tamron 17-50 (or any other lens). However, the concerns about the Sigma were sufficient enough that nobody here seems to own a Sigma 17-70, or if they do, aren't yet willing to recommend it to others.
...
It is worth mentioning that the Sigma's zoom ring turns in the opposite direction, which is counter intuitive for a Sony/Minolta user...

I have two reasons to go with the 17-70:
I picked up a Sigma/Quantaray 18-200 for cheap, and when tests were similar enough for me not to be picky I put it and my Tamron 18-250 up for sale. The Tamron sold, so given the reverse twist of the 18-200 the 17-70 would not be much of a burden.

That's not a great reason since I do have more than two lenses so try this one -
This may sound harsh, and I don't mean it that way - but I see the choice as between an excellent 'tool' (17-50) and an excellent 'toy' (the 17-70).. and I want the fun that comes with focusing really close, whether 70mm 'macro' or 17mm wide. Both are very good lenses, but I believe I'd miss the close-focus nature shots more than shooting beyond 20mm at f/2.8. But hey, that's just me -- and it should be mentioned that when I bought the 18-250 I nearly returned it for the 17-50!

oops, I need to change my sig-line.. again

[KevinBarrett]

Thanks, alphaPDX! I was hoping we'd get a Sigma 17-70 backer to chime in on here. I agree that the extra range is appealing, I just wish it didn't lose so much aperture on the way to 70mm.

[Birma]

I am amazed by the "heat" that the 17-50, 17-70 and 16-80 generate on the DPR Sony forum. It seems to be a topic that gets as passionate as the Sony ISO/noise one. Reading between the lines, it seems they all are great lenses, they each have a few pluses and minuses, so you pay your money and make your choice, as they say .

[alphaPDX]

My reasoning isn't flawless by any means (just count the lenses I've resold! ) - but today it makes sense!

Most of my low-light shots will be landscapes not people, so the f/2.8 is where I'd use it most often. And I'm keeping my 50/1.7 so that's a help (I'd likely sell it if I bought a 17-50). Also, I sold a really nice 17-35 Tamron to finance another lens (since sold ), so going from 17-35 to 17-50 sounds too marginal in hindsight. I'd really like a lens to drop to 16 (or even 15) for a true one-lens answer, but I have the Tamron 14/2.8 to fall back on - it's going to hurt backpacking w/that 660g beast in the bag, but I don't dare see the Sierra Nevada without it. Maybe one day I'll snap and flip that lens for an 11-18 or other relative lightweight, but that is for another day.. The 16-105 has great reviews + a 62mm polarizer is in hand.. so when I'm ready to make my purchase I'll have to watch carefully which button I press

[KevinBarrett]

The more I think about where I'm taking my kit, the more I see that there won't be much use for the Tamron 17-50. My next lens will be one of the Sigma 10-20's, so that covers my wide end, then I've got a 24/2.8 (wish it was 1.8), a 50/1.7 (perfect!), and the 70-210/4. For indoors and low light, I'll have my bases covered with fast primes. For flexibility and leisure, I might go with a 16-80 or 16-105.

That said, I'm talking about replacing one lens with three or four. The Tamron 17-50 is a superb lens that you can use right now for very little cash.

[Winston]

I'm so far out of the mainstream that I may die of thirst...six zooms and none of them listed

[peterottaway]

My APS-C camera bag has my A700 with the Sony 16-80 CZ attached plus a Minolta 35-105 N and the Sony 70-300 G. All take 62mm filters and I have a filter satchel with a R72 infra-red ( not really needed that much with digital ), ND 0.9, graduated ND 0.6 and a circ polarizer.

Yes I would like something wider but the only wide angle zoom that has impressed me is the Tokina 11-16 which is not presently available. I may have to go for the new Sigma 10-20 but the idea of having to pay big dollars for good 82mm filters after just having bought a set of 77mm filters means that this is really an expensive purchase.

[Clayton]

With the new kit lens available, I suspect there will be less need for new users to buy anything else. I have not tried the short one, but the 55-200 has my beercan collecting dust.

[KevinBarrett]

With the new kit lens available, I suspect there will be less need for new users to buy anything else.

Except for the shortened focal length range. I agree that the quality of the new kit lens looks to be far superior to the old 18-70, and the 55-200 has always been a sleeper. I listed here the ten most popular lenses that would be an upgrade in some way from kit lens specifications. I couldn't make more than ten choices, but now I see the Sigma 18-50/2.8 has got no votes in all this time (approaching a year). I'd throw it out to accommodate the new kit lens, but it would invalidate the survey results.

[HFnotts]

I have the CZ 16-80 and find it an excellent quality lens but a very irritating lens.
In anything but horizontal position it creeps out to the 80 setting. I moaned to the dealer (family run high street of excellent reputation) and was told that all the ones they have handled have been like this. Whilst sympathising and agreeing that a lens with a CZ designation ought to be better built there was nothing to be done. I have to say that another they had in stock did exactly this.
It is a minor moan for a high quality lens but its the little things that cause distractions whilst making quick photographic decisions in street style image making.

[KevinBarrett]

Concerning the 16-80, I think DK said it best, something to the effect of "superb optics in an inferior mount."

[bonneville]

I'm surprised that I am the only voter for the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.

It replaced my standard Sony kit lens (after coming out on top in a review in one of the UK photo mags) and it stays almost permanently on my "back-up" a100.

I'm pleased with it so it gets my vote.

[David Kilpatrick]

The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 had big back focus problems when released - many Alpha users found it impossible to get sharp focus. I think this has affected the popularity of the lens ever since.

David

[bonneville]

The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 had big back focus problems when released - many Alpha users found it impossible to get sharp focus. I think this has affected the popularity of the lens ever since. David

I didn't know that David, but thanks for the heads up.

Either my photography is so poor that I haven't noticed it or, hopefully, my copy doesn't suffer as others may have done.

I'll dig out an example for your scruitiny if you want.

Brian

[David Kilpatrick]

From my experience, back focus problems are not predictable and some people have focusing habits which minimise them. I have just been checking the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 with newly (and VERY BADLY!) fitted AF chip and the focus is dead on, exact, no correction needed on the A900. Others have reported differently.

David

(moderator's note: this post showed on the last of page two and the first of page three...when I deleted the "extra" copy, both disappeared, so I have restored it.)